From: vaeth@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de   
      
   Aragorn  wrote:   
   >   
   > I still have to check, but it is possible that the whole of the subtree   
   > consumes that much.  And then there are the .keep files, but they are   
   > zero-sized.   
      
   That's a shortcoming of portage: The only way with portage to install   
   an empty directory is to put something inside. ".keep" is the standard   
   for this.   
      
   > I was referring to things like the scripts, configuration files, /man/ pages   
   > et al.   
      
   This is all set by the mentioned LANG and LC_* variables   
   (and - as mentioned - you can set utf8 there if and only if   
   you have selected this option in /etc/locale.gen. I don't remember   
   how default locale.gen will look like.   
      
   > Most other distributions already default to UTF-8 by now, although   
   > some may still prefer iso-8859-1, which is quite stupid in my humble   
   > opinion as it's the same as iso-8859-15, but _without_ the Euro symbol.   
      
   As mentioned, this is completely trivial to change: Make sure your   
   possible choice(s) were entered in /etc/locale.gen before reemerging glibc   
   and then set LANG and LC_* variables in your environment accordingly.   
      
   > Yes, but my question is, will choosing US English for the language - using   
   > the LINGUAS setting in */etc/make.conf   
      
   LINGUAS setting in /etc/make.conf are only used for some packages   
   like kde or gnome stuff (*not* for thebasic glibc) to decide which   
   languages will be installed.   
      
   > - and or choosing en_US.utf8 still   
   > allow me to type accented characters from the Western European/Latin   
   > languages, or should I specifiy an additional language there?   
      
   The keyboard setting is completely independent of this stuff.   
   I had mentioned the places where you set it.   
      
   > Yes, but the "server" and "desktop" profiles are on the same level.  As far   
   > as I know, I can only create a symlink pointing to either of the three,   
   > i.e. "default-linux", "server" or "desktop".   
      
   Now I understand what you mean. This is the "cascading propfiles" thing:   
   "server" and "desktop" are based on "default-linux/ARCH" but add some changes   
   (similarly, "default-linux/ARCH" is based on "default-linux" which in turn   
   is based on ... - you can follow the hierarchy by considering the "parents"   
   file in the profile). But this is only to simplify creation of profiles   
   for developers. Only "server" and "desktop" are meant for the end-user.   
   [Of course, you are free to choose also such an "intermediate" profile   
   anyway (or extend it by your own) if it suits your needs more, but usually   
   you will have no reason to do so. Practically the only changes are in the   
   defaults of some use-flags which you can change anyway;   
   BTW: You should emerge (and use) ufed to get an overview and set the   
   USE-Flags to your need.   
   And another advertisement: emerge eix to get a good overview over the   
   available/installed packages]   
      
   >> Well, gentoo is about choice...   
   >   
   > Choice is useless if one does not know what each choice represents... :-/   
      
   Then - as a rule - the particular choice is not important for you;   
   probably just any of the alternatives will do fine, and if you realize   
   later that the choice was wrong, it is easily changed.   
      
   >> This is not worth the trouble of reinstall. Over time, you will download   
   >> a lot anyway:   
   >   
   > I don't think so.  The machine in question is going to be set up as   
   > statically as possible, with three or four virtual machines, one of which   
   > will be a production workstation, with the other two/three being the /dom0/   
   > and one or two dedicated servers.   
      
   If you really want a static setup, I am not sure whether gentoo is the   
   right distro for you. Its main advantage is that you can do regular   
   upgrades and do not have to do a "big upgrade" after some period of time.   
   Anyway, what I said holds also for static settings - you will have to   
   upgrade them anyway sometimes, and then practically everything will need   
   to get recompiled. So it does not make sense to do this upgrade now just   
   to get some versions which are a few days younger (unless you have a   
   particular problem which you expect to be solved by this upgrade).   
      
   >> Probably already now Robbins distribution contains outdated   
   >> packages...   
   >   
   > I don't believe that to be true.  Daniel Robbins's latest stage1, stage2 and   
   > stage3 tarballs are dated January 30th, and his latest portage snapshot is   
   > dated January 31st, so... ;-)   
      
   Only since yesterday, I had upgraded 10 installed packages (because   
   they became stable yesterday on x86): iptables, glib, pango, gtk+,   
   librsvg,...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)